I'm a newbie and trying to learn how to create good stock images, but I'm not finding the rejection messages or the documentation too helpful in terms of correcting problems. I submitted two photos that in my mind where identical from a technical perspective. My camera was on a tripod and not moved between shots. No camera settings were changed, yet one of the photos was accepted and the other rejected for "technical issues." Here's the accepted photo:
And here's the rejected one:
I've studied the "Technical issues" section of the "Reasons for content rejection" page, and I can't figure out what technical issue the second photo has that's not present in the first image. Can anyone help explain? And if there's a list of technical issues, why can't the reviewers just come out and tell you which one is the problem? I don't mind my images being rejected, but it's hard to improve if I can't understand the problems.
As a long-time stock contributor, I’ve learned over the years that sometimes the reviewing is inconsistent, and that really there is not a lot to gain by spending time comparing a rejected image to an accepted one. I think both images you showed are nice. Instead of comparing, I would just look at the rejected one.
The main reason that I see a rejection for this is that there appears to be about 3 sensor spots, or spots of dirt on lens (look in the area around the horses’ feet and in the very right corner of the photo). There is also a distracting dark-colored thread in the same area between the horses. Again, I’m not a reviewer - just giving input. Keep shooting! It’s a game of hit and miss at first, but over time you’ll have fewer and fewer rejections.
Thank you so much for this very helpful reply. I'll have to decide if I can deal with this type of inconsistent reviewing and lack of meaningful feedback on rejected images. I'm surprised that more contributors don't complain loudly about this. If you hadn't mentioned the sensor spots (grrrr - I just had my camera professionally cleaned) and the thread, I never would have figured those things out on my own. I'll now be a lot more careful to go over the images I submit with a fine-tooth comb to try to find and correct those types of problems. But without this type of detailed feedback, it's difficult to know what criteria the reviewers are using to evaluate the photos.
I really appreciate the time you took to look over the image so carefully!!
Glad I found your question... as a newbie, I thought the "technical difficulty" was either a) the file upload to Adobe or b) the something about the jpeg not being read by them!
Horrible experience right out of the gate with Adobe Stock. They need a way more defined list of rejection reasons if I am going to contribute. I guess I'll check back next year to see if they are more informative. I don't feel like playing a guessing game with this.
No trouble to check back next year, but the rejection won't be more specific by then. I have even the feeling that it got less specific. The biggest mistake that beginners do is to assume that it is in Adobe's interest to point out specifically your errors in your pictures. But the Adobe interest is to get the pictures approved as fast as possible. But as all moderations are done by humans, there are differences in what one moderator sees or not.
So this is the deal: perfect or near perfect pictures pass. Pictures with some defects may or may not pass. WHen they not pass, they will get an error tag attached. That error tag is very often technical issues. You can then look into your picture and try to find them...or you post here, and some experienced users will give you advice on what may or may not be the cause.
In any case, you are bound to what Adobe accepts. And Adobe has an interest to accept a lot of pictures. SO when they get refused, it's nothing personal. It's because the buyers would complain afterwards...
If you are new to stock, you should consider these resources: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html
Please read the contributor user manual for more information on Adobe stock contributions: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/user-guide.html
See here for rejection reasons: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/reasons-for-content-rejection.html
and especially quality and technical issues: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/quality-and-technical-issues.html
I doubt that buyers especially if they're designers would not find the things wrong with a photo that adobe does. I was a trained designer back in the 80s and couldn't for the life of me find anything wrong with half the photos that get rejected for tech reasons on Adobe. Some rejected photos even sold on the site starting with S get rejected on here (and they are also strict for quality)
It should be in Adobes interest to point out rejection reasons because it would save them (as well as contributors ) a huge amount of time. If we know what was wrong with the photos we can probably fix them. I use to get a lot rejected on 'Ss but hardly get any rejections there now as they told more clearly you the reason why. On Adobe though, I've had far more rejects than when I first started over a year ago which makes no sense at all.
It should be in Adobes interest to point out rejection reasons because it would save them (as well as contributors ) a huge amount of time.
This is a wrong assumption. Adobe accepts thousands of pictures each day. Writing critics to those not accepted costs hours that the moderator can not spend accepting pictures. Most of the refusals are quite clear. there are very few where we (volunteers helping out the photographers in need) are confused about why there was a refusal.
Having collected a bunch of refusals myself, I have some that are probably due to overzealous moderators, but my most obvious faulty refusal on Shutterstock is a best seller on Adobe stock. However, pictures that sell well here don't sell at all on Shutterstock and vice versa.
So even a refusal here and bestseller there does not guarantee success here. That's life.
Not to mention: Adobe stock is my best seller. That may not be your case, but if you submit one and the other... keep it running.
I agree contributors are being kept in the dark for the real reasons for rejections.
I have also contributed some photos for a while. Recent batch of photos I contributed after coming back from Kuala Lumpur has all been rejected. In the past, there are still some accepted, but from other country trips. I wrote in to request for more detailed feedback, other than a simple template reply such as "out of focus" and "grain/noise", but after that, my photos are all rejected as "technical error".
I do feel that if people want to reject your photos, then he/she should write an acceptable feedback himself/herself. We make purchases from Amazon, if product or service is not up to date, despite we are the paying customer, we still need to write our own feedback instead of an automated template. With automated template, you may just not in the mood for that day and reject all photos, without the need to write a good reason.
I feel your frustration! I do wish the Adobe Stock team would take these types of complaints to heart and do a better job of providing more detailed feedback, at least when people request it. I also think they need better quality control to make sure the reviewers are more consistent.
So sorry about your images.
I'm writing as another highly frustrated contributor who doesn't see any consistancy with the reviewers. It even gets worse when you are not only contributing to Adobe Stock, but also to ShutterStock, where I feel the moderators are even more strict. Having said this, confusion even becomes worse! The thing is that pictures accepted by ShutterStock get rejected from Adobe and vice versa.
Once I had a picture rejected for "technical problems". After contacting the support I learned the real reason being a missing model release. For another photo rejected for technicals final rejection was that Adobe said the picture won't sell!
The only way how to deal with the moderators is to be lucky and to build up a huge stock of humor.
Don't take it personal and keep on having fun with your photography.
All the best
Adobe thinking a photo wouldn't sell is not a technical reason and how would they know anyway?. Come on reviewers, Please give contributors a break, and instead of saying tech reasons when there aren't any, just say low commercial value or whatever. A lot of saleable photos are getting rejected and it's wasting our time. Just treat contributors more fairly. A lot of us have come from SS to Adobe because they treated us very badly.
Meanwhile I'm a happy contributor to Alamy!
Do you sell anything on Alamy though?
Yes, the number of pictures is much less, however the prices they sell for are high, but also your commission, which is at about 40%. They even give you 50% for pictures exclusivly on Alamy. Now, I'm engaged in stock photos only since last November. Until March I had seven sales on Adobe, while only one on Alamy. However, my total earnings with Alamy is about 3x higher than those with Adobe.
Alamy from the point of view of the buyer is to expensive. But yes, if you do a sale, make sure you get your payout!
I only provide Adobe with photos that don't make the cut on my own stock site. Until they offer better price action they will not get my best work. I SO want to start a stock photo service to compete against the corporate crooks. I have a feeling that we could offer 55% to the photographers and use 45% to run the service and advertise it. If I was younger, I'd go for it.
I to would love to get more, but the situation is such that users are not paying more. You get around 30% from Adobe stock/asset sold. That's more than others do. As a buyer of stock images you go where it is cheapest.
Shutterstock is not more precise in their refusal reasons. The system is quite the same, except that earnings are less. But this is not a discussion on A and S.
At the end of the day, what count for Adobe as well as for Shutterstock as well as for all stock sellers are the sales that they do, not how happy or unhappy contributors are.
This does not mean that contributors are 100% irrelevant, but there are simply to much of them to give them the point to point critique that beginners would like to get.
But again, contributors are not unimportant to Adobe. In the contrary, if you are successful enough, in addition to the share you get, Adobe attributes free subscriptions of Adobe products to contributors. And getting over the refusals is only a matter of the learning curve.
This is a user-to-user forum. Adobe Stock reveiwers don't visit this space. Nor is it their job to give specfic feedback about each of the thousands of images they must review daily. If it's rejected, it's usually for good cause in one of these categories:
See links below for more details: